Dude it's almost 11:30 now. Not one mod has got on in over 5 hours? I mean yeah i can see 6am being a lil early for some. But it's now going on noon and the guy is STILL posting new spam threads. Sorry but that's a lil ridiculous. Especially considering how quick they are to ban for sometimes very small infractions

You're one of those guys that sees a piece of litter on the ground and then complains about it loudly rather than doing anything about it, aren't you? The 'Report' function is there. Use it.

_____

Back to the main gist of the thread: Not hacked, no hacker. Just an actual person that signed up an account and spammed the forums. Nothing more, nothing less. 99.9% of spammers are caught as soon as they attempt to register. For moderators there is a small widget near the board statistics on the main page that displays how many spam accounts have been blocked. As of this post, it sits at 23,772. (That total is ONLY from this passed fall, which is when I added it.)

So, of course, one makes it through and goes crazy for a few hours and TheDetroitRedWings wails about how it's so pathetic one got missed, early on a Sunday morning no less.

Anyway -- thank you to those of you that did use the report function and thanks to Jedi for getting it sorted out. I was, shamefully, in a deep sleep for once on a Sunday morning after a late night working on the blog -- and taking full advantage of having the kids at the grandparent's house for the weekend.

If you're not aware: the forums underwent an upgrade on 12/28 (part security update, part new version) and following that update forum members started experiencing various errors here. Sometimes the stylesheets for certain pages wouldn't load, sometimes the WYSIWYG editor wouldn't show in a Reply box, pop-up menus wouldn't work, HTML wouldn't be parsed correctly (on quoted replies this was most common), etc..

Today I performed some further updates to remedy these issues: a small database fix, re-caching the forum skins and then finally (tonight), rebuilding the updated template skins (Red and White versions) from the default template that came with the updated forum software.

What's this mean for you? It should be the end of any issues you were having on the site. But first you'll have to clear your browser's cache. You can do so while viewing the site by pressing Ctrl+F5 (PC) or Cmd+R (Mac). That'll force it to re-load all of the site's template files: specifically the CSS and javascript files -- both of which underwent some significant updates and must be re-cached.

If you have any problems after re-caching your browser please feel free to PM me or post your problem in the "Member Services" subforum (and include screenshots if you can,)

Note: The site templates are visually no different from the previous look -- just changes in some functionality and placement (like the "share" capability).

The Flyers did sign Weber to a market value deal -- they just front-loaded it, and that's the key difference here. His AAV is right in line with other comparable elite players for their positions. I don't think the Red Wings would have any qualms throwing an offer out there like this: they have the financial wherewithal and the desperate need to improve at that position. I just wish Holland would throw the "pointless" or "not our modus operandi" that St. James mentions out the window.... You have to change with the times, and if Philadelphia lands a franchise defenseman that roams their blueline for the next 10 years, it was worth it.

That players of the caliber of Suter and Weber were both even available is shocking (less so since they're from the same team, however) and increasingly frustrating that the Red Wings didn't grab one or the other with such a glaring need (despite the salary requirements -- they needed one).

The four 1st-rounders don't concern me when it's a franchise defenseman.

You can't possibly pay a player more than Weber will be making for the next few years. On top of that if he gets him, it also costs him 4 first round draft picks.

Weber is a great defenceman but he isn't the best player in the NHL

No one is saying he's the best player in the NHL, he's just one of the top three -- if not the best -- player at his position and he's now compensated as such. Regardless, the cost of successfully prying a player away via offer sheet -- and offer sheets for *any* players, for that matter -- is done via two ways: vast overpayment or handcuffing a franchise via poison pill(s).

I don't believe Weber is overpaid in this case over the term of the contract, but in order for the Flyers to even pry him from Nashville they had to put in a monster of a poison pill to the tune of $52 million in bonus money alone over the first four years that cannot be reduced by a new CBA-forced salary rollback.

That's $52 million over the first four years no matter what. Period. No way to get around that, have it reduced by 24% Rollback Part 2, etc., etc..

They can't. As of now he is not signed to a contract by anybody, so only his rights could be traded; and because he has signed an offer sheet, his rights cannot be traded.

You didn't understand what I was saying. Once the decision is made on the offersheet -- in this case Nashville choosing not to match -- the Flyers can still trade player assets to re-acquire the the four 1st round picks they lost as part of the offer sheet. See Chris Gratton: http://en.wikipedia....ts#cite_note-19

If the Flyers get Weber they'll have to shed salary, Nashville needs to add it, and the Flyers would probably like to add those No. 1s back. In the end it likely won't end up being as simple as four 1st rounders. Philly could end up re-acquiring up to three of them and send a forward or two back the other way. It's the scenic route to a standard Flyers/Predators trade, the offer sheet just expedited and locked in Philadelphia as the destination.

Can someone explain me what's so brilliant in a fact that Holmgren and the Flyers can throw more $$$ in bonuses than Poile and the Preds?

Because forking over $27-million to one player in a calendar year before you could trade him is a huge stumbling block for a small market club that Forbes valued at $168 million in 2011. Almost 1/3 of the value of the franchise will be doled out to one player ($56-million) during the first four years of the contract. It's a big pill to swallow for a small-market franchise. It's sole purpose is to put the screws to Nashville's ability to match the offer. If the money was spread out over the term evenly Nashville would have matched it the second it was submitted to the league office.

Your first mistake is confusing a question with an 'argument'. You make valid points and I accept your reasoning... no reason to get all pissy about it. Need a tampon?

Of course they're "valid" -- how would they not be? On what planet is it allowed where a professional sports league office hands out money to small-market teams just so they can keep a specific player? It's just a downright silly suggestion. They get what they get from revenue sharing, and that's it. No special favors for specific situations.

As an aside, your second mistake (the first being the ridiculous post that started the dialog) is to not be fully aware of the definitions of "argument". For your education: http://dictionary.re...browse/argument (specifically, points #2 and #3). No one is getting "pissy" here, but if that's the road you wish to travel down it would appear the only tampon present here is wedged between your ears.

Oh, and one of the benefits of me being around the forums more often now is that I can sniff out previously banned members who sign up under different usernames. So, in this case, should I call you "MrSandman"? Or "MrSandmann"? Nevermind, you can't answer that now.

NHL bailout. If Nashville lose Weber, they might as well fold. If NHL loses Coyotes and Predators, then that's loss of NHL revenue, no? Would it be in the leagues best interest to bailout Nashville financially if they can't afford their franchise player?

You cannot be serious with this, can you? You do realize that even suggesting this would be paramount to destroying the competitive integrity of the league when the league office steps in to fill the coffers of another millionaire owner just so he can afford a franchise player when it is the fault of his own club's management to mishandle said player and leave him open to be poached by other club well within the rules everyone agreed upon?

We're not talking about "bailing out" an entire franchise -- you're talking about a singular player. This whole argument as absurd on so many levels it's ridiculous.